John Durham’s first trial was a bust, ending in a quick acquittal.
A federal jury delivered a major setback to special counsel John Durham on Tuesday, acquitting cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann on a charge that he lied to the FBI in 2016 while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
After a two-week trial that revived old controversies about the FBI’s role in that presidential election, the verdict was not a close call or a hard decision, two jurors told The Washington Post.
“Politics were not a factor,” said the jury forewoman, who declined to give her name as she left the federal courthouse in downtown Washington. “We felt really comfortable being able to share what we thought. We had concise notes, and we were able to address the questions together.
“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” the forewoman added, saying the government “could have spent our time more wisely.” A second juror told The Post that in the jury room, “everyone pretty much saw it the same way.”
Trumpers online assure us that the proceeding was corrupt.
Just like the 2020 election was supposedly rigged, now the Sussman jury was rigged too. Because, of course, MAGA never, ever loses. MAGA sample reaction. pic.twitter.com/y0Y394c2Lk
— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) May 31, 2022
I wrote about this attitude recently: the default these days is to reflexively engage in cynicism and assume any institution or proceeding you don’t like is corrupt. It’s a dangerous way of thinking. I don’t know what we can do to break out of it, but we need to.
This is all started because the corrupt person believes that everyone else is corrupt, just like he is. Classic case of projection.Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/1/2022 @ 8:46 am
Very weak case, but Durham had nothing more urgent demanding his office’s resources like a real prosecutor does, and really no discretion. He had to take the shot.nk (e1ab85) — 6/1/2022 @ 8:53 am
It’s a problem. I think part of it is loss of faith in institutions when those institutions don’t reliably deliver desired results. If courts/LEO/FBI don’t consistently give you want you want why would you trust them and why wouldn’t you believe some outlandish conspiracy theory that explains the failure.
It’s a lot easier to believe that some evil group of shadowing conspirators is cheating then it is to believe that your preferences are just less popular then the positions you hate. Especially with a media environment that’s figured out how to monetize outrage.
It’s gone on long enough that the conspiracy theories have become so deeply held that they’re not falsifiable.
No idea how to get out of it.Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/1/2022 @ 9:15 am
Anyone who thought Durham had a chance was high.mg (8cbc69) — 6/1/2022 @ 9:41 am
I agree. It was a pretty weak case.Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:05 am
Vietnam’s Pentagon Papers; Watergate, Iran-Contra; WMD fakery; baseball players juicing; Afghanistan debacle; ‘deflategate’; China kissing NBA balls; Catholic priests diddling kiddies; Weinstein’s Hollywood; TV network and corporate ethics scandals; Enron; endless Congressional misdeeds; POTUS giving interns a turn… Operation Varsity Blues… zealous cops; Secret Service partiers; FBI eyed; SCOTUS leaker… and now, attempted assassin Hinckley, who disrupted and destroyed so many lives w/a gun, to walk free… to name a few; choose the institution[s] that have not earned a jaundiced eyeing and healthy dose of cynicism when corruption increasingly becomes the rule– not the exception.DCSCA (d56a7a) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:18 am
Even Andrew McCarthy at National Review didn’t expect an acquittal. The reason was that the FBI admitted that they knew that Sussman was working for Hillary. Sussman is a liar, and he lied to the FBI. However, his lie didn’t fool the FBI so the lie was not “material” in a legal sense. As Kim Strassel wrote in the WSJ, Durham already won because he proved that the FBI was in on the hoax. The FBI’s tech specialist knew that the Alpha Bank link to Trump’s campaign was BS, but others at the FBI proceeded with Operation Hurricane, nevertheless. Lisa Page and Peter Strok text messages prove that the personnel at the FBI were out to nail Trump. However, they apparently violated no statutes with their political bias.
This effort only makes sense if Durham was using Sussman to lay a trap for prosecuting someone at the FBI for lying to get the FISA Court warrants approved. We’ll see if this is the end of the road for Durham.The Wean Corps (e685b5) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:22 am
Op Hurricane was handled in appropriately up and down the chain and right now, everyone wants it to just go away. The case was run from HQ, with SES-level agents making decisions that should have been handled by seasoned case agents. Stzrok should have not been involved in the case at all. Briefed on it? Of course. Ask questions? Sure. But getting involved in FISA applications and doing case work – never. The IG detailed the problems with this to the nth degree but who knows whether the IG’s investigation will prompt changes to ensure these political machinations don’t bleed into shoddy law enforcement work.Hoi Polloi (ade50d) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:33 am
@8, The FBI has started Crossfire Hurricane in July. Sussman spoke to the FBI in September.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:42 am
Error, meant to write that “Even Andrew McCarthy at NR didn’t expect a conviction.”The Wean Corps (e685b5) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:43 am
@10. I wrote proceeded with, not started, Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Strzok and Page bias preceded Sussman, but was stoked by it.The Wean Corps (e685b5) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:46 am
But Mike Flynn needed to be ran out of town because he materially “lied” to the FBI.
If you don’t see the 2 tier justice right now, I’d ask you get your eye sight checked. 😉whembly (0ae2ca) — 6/1/2022 @ 11:56 am
It’s a dangerous way of thinking. I don’t know what we can do to break out of it, but we need to.
let’s say you have two options:
1. a trump appointed judge and a jury drawn from boise idaho
2. an obama appointed judge and a DC jury
if you’re the defense lawyer, which do you choose for sussmann?
which do you choose for flynn?
are the answers the same? why, or why not?
if they’re different, is this a “dangerous way of thinking?”JF (e93577) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:18 pm
You meant to say Coeur D’Alene, likely future capital of Greater Alberdaho.urbanleftbehind (747a76) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:24 pm
Because there’s a difference between a more/less favorable jury and the claims being made about this case.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:27 pm
Whembly, Flynn plead guilty.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:27 pm
John Durham’s first trial was a bust
if Weissmann puts a trump crony on trial who gets acquitted, but as part of sworn testimony a high level trump advisor says that trump knew about the dnc hack in advance and ok’d it, I seriously doubt we’d see a post here claiming the trial was a bust
we’d witness unbridled euphoria lasting eons, and Weissmann would have the conundrum of deciding which ticker tape parade to appear inJF (a282c2) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:27 pm
@14. Institutionalists would naturally cry a worrisome foul when questioning the competence or incompetence of protected bureaucrats. The problem is the incompetence is increasingly pervasive. Trump at least deserves credit for not ‘confirming’ the bureaucrats that he could- when he was able- and kept them pending– so as to be able to can them for poor job performance. You know, that private sector thingy your boss hold over staff in that if you don’t perform, “You’re fired.”DCSCA (a6b38a) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:28 pm
@17 Time123, he recanted due to improper counsel (who had their own interest in Flynn to plea guilty due to their own involvement of Flynn’s FARA issues).
Furthermore, the FBI interviewer had the transcript and didn’t share it with Flynn during the interview (as its SOP when seeking clarification of the conversations).
So, again, I ask the same question: do you not see the differences?whembly (3bda0a) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:31 pm
@18, nothing remotely like that happened in this trial, which I’m not sure if you understand or not.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:31 pm
@20, Whembly, he lied. He admitted he lied, then accepted a pardon for lying, which is another admission that he lied.
The FBI for sure went hard to try and get him to turn on Trump. But this looks like Durham doing the same thing. The only difference being the lack of a plea and a not guilty verdict.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:34 pm
i think it’s great that sussmann can now say he didn’t lie
that leaves us with an fbi that doesn’t have the excuse that they were deceivedJF (e93577) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:34 pm
Wanted to add, all of the analysis I saw said that Flynn was looking at probation as a likely sentence.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:36 pm
Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:31 pm
it comes down to how you characterize what mook testified about clinton
how would you characterize it, Time123, if not analogous?JF (e93577) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:38 pm
JF, What are you talking about? What exactly is your theory for what the FBI did wrong? You do know that the investigation was in full swing before Sussman and the FBI field agents said they’d have investigated the tip even if they’d known where it came from? I’m honestly not clear on your theory of wrong doing in this instance/.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:38 pm
@25, they testified that she was aware of and approved the efforts to place unflattering stories in the press. Not that she was aware of or participated in illegal activities.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:39 pm
@27 “unflattering stories”
lol that says it all
we had an entire two year special counsel investigation ostensibly about “election meddling” using russian sourced misinformation
but that was so 2017JF (e93577) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:46 pm
Jury composition has no effect on verdicts, or something.
I doubt a DC jury would convict a Democratic operative for anything. It’s just a game, but that’s okay. The positive effects of the 2016 election continue to be felt far beyond what happens to these hangers-on.mikeybates (08a902) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:49 pm
No we didn’t. We had a special counsel investigation on Russia breaking US law to interfere in the election and if the Trump campaign coordinated with them.
So I ask again, which illegal acts do you think were testified to?Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:49 pm
So I ask again, which illegal acts do you think were testified to?
Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 12:49 pm
here you goJF (e93577) — 6/1/2022 @ 1:01 pm
The Andrew McCarthy writing on Fox News wasn’t surprised:
Michael Sussmann’s not guilty verdict wasn’t a surprise. Here’s whyRip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/1/2022 @ 1:05 pm
Your link doesn’t allege that this was intended to deceive the FBI, which could be a crime. It says it was intended to distract the public by vilifying Trump.
So still not the same thing.Time123 (5d092e) — 6/1/2022 @ 1:06 pm
This is a far more important verdict.
/sarcRip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/1/2022 @ 1:13 pm
If your POV on this is remotely common, and I suspect it is, we don’t. The DOJ and IC are obviously and very proudly engaging in domestic politics. We’re well past this being something that can easily be fixed.
This isn’t a matter of not getting what I want and pretending that it is is part of the problem.frosty (afabef) — 6/1/2022 @ 1:52 pm
So, Covid.Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/1/2022 @ 1:58 pm
Alfa Bank wasn’t the reason the FBI launched Operation Hurricane. Non-sequitur.Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:33 pm
Also, your comment that “Lisa Page and Peter Strok text messages prove that the personnel at the FBI were out to nail Trump” was canceled by IG Horowitz, which did not find evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI investigation.
Would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley Jr. set for June 15 release
A mass shooting by some definitions.Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:37 pm
Andrew McCarthy in the New York Post (boldface added by me)
I don’t think you needed to prove that the investigating agency was fooled by the lie. You have to prove that the lie mattered.
And it did.
There were internal lies within the FBI and they needed support. Not everyone in the FBI was part of a political conspiracy, nor could they be sure there wouldn’t be a price for them to pay if different people occupied federal office. Some higher-ups in the FBI needed the denial on the record, even if it was implausible.
So it was material.Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:38 pm
I think the jury in the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case probably, in general, reached the right decision.
They found them both liable for defaming each other.
Johnny Depp was awarded $15 million in compensation and Amber Heard was awarded $2 million.Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:38 pm
Depp’s punitive damages of $5M were downgraded to the Virginia statutory maximum of $350K.
They both should have received a $1. They deserved each other.Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:47 pm
@22 Time: not according to the transcript.
You do know people take a plea deal, even if they believe they were innocent because of the gamble of going to court they could face even more severe penalty… is a thing right?
Again, the biggest issue here is that the FBI is continually shown to be susceptible to partisan abuses. We should all be very concerned about that.whembly (7e0293) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:48 pm
DC jury, yeah, they’d convict a sleaze ball Democrat.
Strassel has it right. All that could rationally be expected was that those involved at the top would be exposed for what they approved. And that did happen.
And when those involved in the justice system show what their principles have mutated into, show how much respect they truly have for what’s fair and impartial, it should be considered an eye opening gift.Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:51 pm
Remember the hinckley jury in d.c. A maga jury in the south would do the opposite. Political trials depend on no jury nullification. That usually happens when they are caught stealing not doing politics.asset (623cd9) — 6/1/2022 @ 2:55 pm
There was nothing to recant. Flynn was already convicted of his crime, and the judge refused to withdraw his ruling until he had the opportunity to review the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, but that was all short-circuited by Trump’s pardon.
The irony here is the assertion that Flynn’s original defense counsel so “improper” that he was compelled to be replace them with Sidney “Batsh-t” Powell.Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/1/2022 @ 3:52 pm
OT- Plagiarist POTUS Complains He’s Not Getting Credit Due.
Film at 11.DCSCA (5da801) — 6/1/2022 @ 3:58 pm
RIP Ronnie Hawkins (87). The early 1960’s lineup of his band The Hawks included Levon Helm, Robbie Robertson, Rick Danko, Richard Manuel and Garth Hudson.Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/1/2022 @ 4:04 pm
Biden isn’t getting credit for being appointed to the US Naval Academy in 1965 eithersteveg (3cd664) — 6/1/2022 @ 4:06 pm
OT- Another mass shooting w/rifle at hospital Tulsa at hospital; shooter dead; reports multiple casualties/injuries- possible fatalities.DCSCA (5da801) — 6/1/2022 @ 4:09 pm
Here are a couple of Sussmann clips from dreadful, awful, horrible people:
I got past how much I hate the sources and was able to sit unbiased through the videos.
If the second video is true doesn’t that make Wray’s answer really slimy?BuDuh (340919) — 6/1/2022 @ 4:11 pm
“There are two standards of the law.” – Bill Barr on Fox News; 6/1/22
Hmmmm. Rules for thee but no for me, eh, Billy Boy? And this pork chop was the Attorney General of the United States.
Little wonder cynicism flourishes watering the tree of American Populism.DCSCA (5da801) — 6/1/2022 @ 4:32 pm
Why is Director Wray “dreadful, awful, horrible”, BuDuh?Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/1/2022 @ 5:22 pm
My error, Paul. The first clip came from Julie Kelly. I thought I posted her twitter link that went to the cspan clip. I was moaning and groaning about the sources, not the pristine director of the fbi. He is dandy.
Anyways, hypothetically speaking, if the claim in the second clip is true do you think Wray was a little too coy in the first clip?BuDuh (340919) — 6/1/2022 @ 5:40 pm
I only caught the first minute or so of the Wray clip and didn’t see anything objectionable. He clearly wasn’t interested in saying much about the case.Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/1/2022 @ 5:59 pm
As for Carlson-Gaetz, I’ll reserve judgment on the claim.
Sammy, you are one of the most relentlessly detail oriented people I know. So when you say this:
I’m inclined to believe you have some evidence of it. I haven’t seen any. It’s a plausible theory, but there are plenty of alternative explanations. Any testimony or documentary evidence that they were using Sussman’s statement in the way you describe? Again, I’m not saying that the motive you describe is impossible. Only that I haven’t seen any evidence of it.
Another plausible explanation is “The Clinton campaign says they counted evidence of illegality, their lawyer gave us a tip. Could be BS but we should check it out quietly since that’s easy to do.”Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 5:03 am
One of the things that’s bothered me about this is how people unhappy with the verdict have been claiming that this jury was biased, no DC jury can be trusted, or the American Justice system can’t be trusted. I guess those are claims that can be defended but I keep seeing one of the Juror’s statement taken out of context and misrepresented as proof of nullification.
Here’s an example:
What the Juror actually said about the Jury’s work was that they reviewed all the evidence and didn’t find in favor of the state. In a follow up question she was asked if she thought it was worth it and said she didn’t think it was. But taking only her follow up answer and using it to say that this was nullification is a lie. It’s one that Trump’s former AG asserted on Fox News, Jon Solomon repeated it, and it’s spread enough that it’s now ‘evidence’ that the jury was biased.
One more example of a lie being used to destroy faith in our institutions when those institutions fail to deliver what ppl want.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/31/sussmann-acquitted-trump-special-counsel-00036033Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 5:26 am
Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 5:26 am
jurors aren’t asked by the court to decide whether a case is worth bringing, and the average juror is aware of that
the best answer would’ve been something like “that’s not our job”, and most jurors have the good sense to answer that way even if they think differently privately
but the juror dove into the answer, indicating that she thought it was her jobJF (35b3bf) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:00 am
Matt Whittaker on Fox. A Trump stooge on a Trump stage. Not to be taken seriously.
The presumption of innocence is built-in. A “bias” that the jury is instructed to have. Literally instructed. As in written jury instructions. Written with letters It was Durham’s job to overcome it. He did not.nk (b8bc21) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:06 am
the problem with not accepting outcomes from our institutions, is that those complaining about it now aren’t the same people complaining about it in 2016JF (9cb379) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:06 am
JF, I think a juror is entitled to their opinion on if a trial was worth it after they’ve discharged their duties. I was on a Jury once and i have an opinion about if that trial was a good idea. Also, she was responding to a direct question from a reporter, not the court.
But that wasn’t my point. My point was that not including her statement that the jury evaluated the evidence to arrive at the verdict is deceptive and lies to the audience about what she was saying and what was happening.Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:31 am
Time123 (9f42ee) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:31 am
a juror is certainly entitled to their opinion, just as they’re entitled to cast doubt on their objectivity with whatever opinions they choose to voiceJF (35b3bf) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:36 am
Since I brought it up.
I was a juror on a retail fraud case.
The defendant was charged with stealing 4 bottles of expensive champagne worth enough money for a felony.
We found that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he’d stolen 3 bottles of champagne; which was worth enough money for a misdemeanor. So we convicted him of that.
It took 3 days, and in deliberation we discussed that it seemed like a jury trial over 500$ of champagne was odd. No one was worked up over it. But we all thought it was odd and assumed there were facts we didn’t know. But that wasn’t a factor in how we decided.
After the trial the judge explained that the defendant was a repeat offender and would have faced significant prison time had we convicted him of a felony. Which is why they charged him the way they did. So while he got some jail time for the conviction it was a win for the defense.
Pretty easy defense as I recall. The state presented no evidence that 4 bottles had been stolen. They had video of at least 2 being taken off the shelf, and a witness that saw the 3rd. But that was it. No evidence on the 4th. When asked the police didn’t know if any inventory or accounting had been done to determine how many were missing.
Defense did a good job of showing that only 3 bottles were accounted for.
Story seemed slightly relevant as evidence that Jurors do think of questions about the importance of the case.Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:41 am
@61 What’s being reported is still a lie.Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:42 am
Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:41 am
it sounds like you put a lot of thought into it, and had the right questions in your head, but it looks like those questions were material to the case and didn’t revolve around whether the defendant was a D or an RJF (35b3bf) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:50 am
some context:JF (35b3bf) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:55 am
What’s being reported is still a lie.
Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:42 am
i think the bar for what’s a lie got moved higher recentlyJF (35b3bf) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:57 am
jurors aren’t asked by the court to decide whether a case is worth bringing, and the average juror is aware of that
Grand juries are. That’s what grand juries do. Decide whether a case is worth bringing. But they apply a much, much, much (three muches) lower standard than a trial jury.
And here’s the deal, man, and let’s cut the malarkey. The grand jury that indicted Sussmann was also a DC jury.nk (72a763) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:58 am
nk (72a763) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:58 am
…as every ham sandwich nods in agreementJF (35b3bf) — 6/2/2022 @ 7:02 am
Patterico is right to be concerned about the trashing of institutions, whether it’s the courts, public health, investigatory bodies, or the electoral process. It’s not that our institutions should never be questioned or held to account. Our news ecosystem is a mess and a big part of the problem. There’s aspects of organized religion that deserve pointed criticism these days. The problem though is when we erode criticial institutions, like the belief that elections are overwhelmingly fair, what exactly fills the void? The same with the courts, the same with public health, the same with academic researchers/expertise.
It all devolves to confirmation bias and living in bubbles that reinforce questionable conclusions and questionable policy positions. It doesn’t help that Trump plays on this and elevates it. We no longer as a society can accept criticism and find middle ground. Everything is an existential battle that has us defend the indefensible…because the other side is always worse. So it starts and ends with how we consume information and treat each other. Stop playing the melodramatic victim and see both sides. Social media is a beast that we are making it our master. At some point someone has to clean up after the bull in the China shop.AJ_Liberty (a36eed) — 6/2/2022 @ 7:16 am
an example was set in 2016-17-18
those who set that example are now really upset that others are following it, and want their concerns taken seriouslyJF (35b3bf) — 6/2/2022 @ 7:45 am
Dozens of comments but little about evidence, relevant case law, and burden….it just has to be the jury….and hypocrisy….waaaaahhh, unfair, unfairAJ_Liberty (a36eed) — 6/2/2022 @ 8:13 am
@64, nothing in the Juror’s statements indicated partisan bias just that she didn’t think this alleged crime was a big deal.
Which given that the FBI field agents testified that the investigations wouldn’t have been any different had they known the source makes some sense.Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 8:35 am
Patterico is right to be concerned about the trashing of institutions, whether it’s the courts, public health, investigatory bodies, or the electoral process.
I would add that if that is the reason that Trump’s Justice Department never after the DC pizzerias with pedophiles in their basements, because Sessions, Whittaker and Barr believed that they could never get a conviction with a DC jury, that it is a very serious demoralizing consequence.nk (72a763) — 6/2/2022 @ 8:53 am
never *went* afternk (72a763) — 6/2/2022 @ 9:11 am
@72, yup. Lots of grievance and hurt feelings but that’s about it.Time123 (9b76f4) — 6/2/2022 @ 9:13 am
@69. Our news ecosystem is a mess and a big part of the problem…
Except it’s not. Don’t blame the messengers for the plethora of failings and growing incompetence surfacing in our graying institutions. When government bureaucrats- be they be-robed or in gold-braided uniforms- fail to perform by losing track of their paperwork– or abandon billions in costly equipment, at taxpayer expense, they deserve to be raked over the coals– especially when you can’t fire them for poor job performance, as you can in the private sector.DCSCA (19ac70) — 6/2/2022 @ 9:29 am
(an) ex-juror is certainly entitled to their opinion, just as they’re entitled to cast doubt on their objectivity with whatever opinions they choose to voice…
FIFYRip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/2/2022 @ 9:31 am
“Except it’s not.”
Watch FNC and MSNBC and get back to us. We now mix hard news with partisan news analysis so that we’ve created two separate realities….with few common facts. If we don’t like something, we now just call it fake news. These aren’t the referees of your youth….AJ_Liberty (a36eed) — 6/2/2022 @ 10:49 am
It’s worse then that. To keep engagement up they try to make outrage a key part of every story. That leads to sensational slants and building an emotional position in the audience that is at best exaggerated and at worst completely untethered from reality.Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 10:51 am
@78. Pfft. Don’t blame the messengers, AJ.DCSCA (4b1e14) — 6/2/2022 @ 11:11 am
Read Pat’s substack and get back to us. Like NASA, it looks like one more personal blind spot.AJ_Liberty (a36eed) — 6/2/2022 @ 11:19 am
@81. Why don’t you read #6 and #19 AJ– then get back to ‘us’.
Don’t blame the messengers.DCSCA (cc0cd1) — 6/2/2022 @ 1:05 pm
Which given that the FBI field agents testified that the investigations wouldn’t have been any different had they known the source makes some sense.
Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 8:35 am
yeah, if you think lying to the fbi didn’t really matter to their investigation then who cares
now do flynn
better yet, maybe you can argue with a 2017 version of yourself and let us know who winsJF (35c408) — 6/2/2022 @ 1:07 pm
@82, if you want to defend Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Al Sharpton, and Chris Hayes, have at it. News analysis from Jesse Watters? He ain’t no Cronkite. It’s harder for people to differentiate fact from speculation from spin. They know what they’re doing….and it’s hard to run a democracy that way. The Russians love our media and you love them Russians.AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 6/2/2022 @ 1:56 pm
JF, You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I said that given the testimony of the FBI on the lack of impact of the alleged lie the Juror’s perspective that the trial wasn’t a good use of time makes sense.
Especially since the Jury quickly and unanimously found not guilty.
FWIW I think the definition of material as written is bad one and needs to be reformed to show that there was some actual impact to the lie. But it should be enforced fairly until it’s changed.
I don’t see a lot difference here between Sussman and Flynn. In both cases it seems likely that a DOJ prosecutor was trying to use a false statements change to get additional information for an active investigation. Difference been Flynn plead guilty and Sussman plead not guilty and went to trial.Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 1:58 pm
@84. AJ when you figure out the difference is between journalists and opinion pundits, get back to ‘us.’
Don’t blame the messengers.DCSCA (cc0cd1) — 6/2/2022 @ 2:13 pm
It’s harder for people to differentiate fact from speculation from spin.
Reaganoptics. Reaganaurics. Thank Ronnie’s evil minions for revoking the Fairness Doctrine, AJ. Only fools would consider the likes of a dead Rush Limbaugh, a lively Sean Hannity or a loofah wielding Bill O’Reilly as new sources. Cable opinionators, newspaper columnists and talk radio DJs are entertainers.DCSCA (cc0cd1) — 6/2/2022 @ 2:19 pm
Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 5:03 am
Sammy, you are one of the most relentlessly detail oriented people I know. So when you say this:
I didn’t follow the case so much myself but that they lied internally is what I draw from what Andrew McCarthy wrote:
It seems to me that if they concealed Sussmann’s name from the investigating agents and put down that it came from the DOJ that they were lying internally — unless the agents charged with investigating were in on the game or never knew what was being written down somewhere.
But it is somewhat logical there would be internal lies because then not that many people would have haad to be doing something improper.
That wouldn’t be unreasonable, but it is not what they wrote.
Now I think higher ups at the FBI did not try to affect the election – they didn’t want to guess who would win. or try to help one side win. But they did want to get along with whomever would be in charge in the future. For this reason they attempted to satisfy the Clinton campaign, without at the same time, actually investigating Donald Trump.Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:07 pm
The Clinton campaign wanted an investigation that pointed to Donald Trump himself so there would be something that neutralize the problem of the investigation of Hillary for not treating classified information properly
They also wanted to accuse Trump of intentionally working with Putin. (and this would be helped by the fact of an FBI investigation which could be leaked, and if it was true that there was an FBI investigation, reporters would be much more likely to believe and report the leak)
One example Reid posited of the “selective approach”: Comey’s methods in investigating Donald Trump and his campaign’s possible ties to the Russian government.
Now I think Harry Reid was acting on behalf of the Democratic campaign, just like he was in 2012 when he made up that story about Romney paying no taxes.Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:12 pm
The Fairness Doctrine was an infringement of the 1A (per FCC)…it’s no solution and it only applied to broadcast medium, where there is a limited spectrum.
Trust in news media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly is at 36%. That’s below Biden. That’s not because of Reagan….he’s been dead awhile…and it’s certainly not only because of Talk Radio, which is meant to be entertainment but also shapes attitudes.
People come to conventional news sources with heavy biases already in place. This created the market for Left/Right journalism that creates big holes in our collective understanding. What makes the news, how it is portrayed, and the tone is different from network to network…again Reagan didn’t cause this, he’s still dead. Professional journalism has been subsumed (dwarfed) and captured by opinionating and political correctness. Read patterico’s substack piece and see an example in action…then get back to usAJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:18 pm
@90. Infringement? ROFLMAOPIP.
=mike-drop=DCSCA (e5ebab) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:20 pm
Trust in news media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly is at 36%.
… and Putin smiled.DCSCA (e5ebab) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:21 pm
Of course, I think that Vladimir Putin would never attempt to work confidentially with Trump, but I do think he thought Hillary had been responsible for the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in February 2014 because he thought Victoria Nuland was one of her women — Hillary tried to backdate the break with Putin to 2011.
And I think he also hoped to plant spies or agents of influence in a future U.S. Administration.
He didn’t succeed, due in no small part to the FBI entrapping Mike Flynn, but he did succeed in getting Trump to fire the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and to cut off military aid to Ukraine for about 55 days in 2019 (acting through informants of Giuliani)
Anyway this is what Hillary Clinton herself said: (after first arranging for others to be the original sources)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotatedSammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:30 pm
Time123 (fcfc1c) — 6/2/2022 @ 1:58 pm
I think something can be material if the person who lied thought or could reasonably think it could afect an investigation.Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:33 pm
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/politics/transcript-republican-presidential-debate.htmlSammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/2/2022 @ 3:44 pm
=yawn= After the fifth ‘My God’ and the moment he mentioned dead Beau- changed channel…
If 50 year swampy, senator Squinty McStumblebum feigns an inability to do anything about gas prices he sure as hell can’t manage the gun issue. ‘Do something’ doesn’t mean flying away to the beach tonight.
He ain’t no LBJ nor HST.DCSCA (f78a88) — 6/2/2022 @ 4:54 pm
“Could reasonably think” is close, but I believe “thought” is incorrect. A lie is material for purposes of 18 USC 1001 if it has “a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.” That looks objective, not subjective or objective-subjective.
That said, there’s a logic to your inclusion of “thought.” It’s an element of 18 USC 1001 that the lie be committed willfully, which means “the defendant acted deliberately and with knowledge both that the statement was untrue and that his or her conduct was unlawful.” One could argue the defendant must know the lie is material, or else the question of willfulness becomes recursive. Whether and if so how that’s been resolved I have no idea.lurker (cd7cd4) — 6/2/2022 @ 6:54 pm
Sussmann was found innocent, but isn’t it odd that the FBI and Perkins Coie supposedly had a liason office in a Perkins Coie building for the FBI and Sussmann was in charge of that liaison?
How convenient that turned out to be.
The FBI did not emerge covered in glorysteveg (c57b54) — 6/3/2022 @ 6:58 pm
What BS. The evidence showed the conspiracy was real, HRC was the source. This trial, having political implications, taking place anywhere within 200 miles of DC is like have an all white jury from Alabama decide the guilty of a black man……in the 50s. Try that case again in Ohio or FLorida.Richard Wetmore (220adb) — 6/5/2022 @ 8:24 am